I bet you get lots of emails, right? (Not really. - Ed.) Have you noticed the tenor of the missives? I made a comment to friend of mine, Colonel in MilInt, and he implied that yes, there is a movement within the US as is getting ready for "Doomsday." Not a bunch of crazies mind you, but average everyday Joes and Janes.

#2 he explicitly told me that yes, the world has little to no respect for the Obama administration, or the man himself. Central and South American wanna-be dictators do not fear any repercussions from the US, and the few allies we had are sick of being thrown under the bus for Obama's expediencies.

Don't even get me started on Honduras. The only mistake their Congress made was ordering the exile of that left wing loon. Everything else was done by their Constitution, down to a unanimous decision by their fifteen man Supreme Court. Unanimous. The military was ordered to execute the warrant, they did their job, what they were ordered to do. Like good citizen soldiers of their nation.

Obviously wasn't born in 1859 and really don't remember 1968 all that well. However, this period does strike me as somewhat like the Carter presidency. We're weak, we're accurately perceived as weak, and the world acts accordingly. The current crop of imbeciles are going to have to go and new blood with new ideas put to work.

Of course, just who that new blood might be is currently not obvious. For the new ideas, oh, I like freedom, liberty, self-responsibility and capitalism. We haven't tried those in a hardcore way in quite a while, and I'd like to see how they work in the 21st century.

This guy reminds me of Gray Davis, more than Jimmy Carter. I heard-tell that Davis told Ca. legislators that they were only there to "implement his vision". Just my $.02, but the egos seem to match. Watch what happens when it gets hurt and angry.I keep waiting to hear we've bombed Copenhagen.

I would say that we are also perceived as weak but it is because our country has moved so far to the right that we believe that any government involvement in the marketplace as being inherently evil. Congress, and that includes Democrats, is essentially the board of Goldman Sachs or Country Wide.

"Central and South American wanna-be dictators do not fear any repercussions from the US"

Wrong. Chavez knows his days are numbered. Nice try, though, spinning Obama as weak etc. The comparisons are laughable when you consider that some of the things that Carter warned us about ended up coming true as soon as the Gipper took over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXvGKJF2XQU&feature=related

(Start on 2:30)

Interesting that TSM's Lord Voldermort actually echos many of things that have been written on here.

"For the new ideas, oh, I like freedom, liberty, self-responsibility and capitalism."

It depends on what your definition of what all this means which, I suspect, is different from mine. It's obvious to folks like Citigroup that we no longer have capitalism in this country. This is because of the stranglehold that corporations have on us. In fact, it's now been proved that the view us as peasants.

http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/

There was a time in this country where you could work hard, pay your bills, if you got sick you could afford it, and you got four weeks of paid vacation a year. Those days are gone. Why?

Because any mention of a return to this sort of order is immediately blasted by fearful, hate mongering ideologues who wouldn't recognize capitalism if it bit them on the ass. Or, for that matter, recognize the reality of what our nation has become due to this ideology.

The re-set button is going to be hit, alright, but I can assure you that it's not going to be hit by white identity groups being run by Glenn Beck and Boss Limbaugh. It's going to start here...

Congress, and that includes Democrats, is essentially the board of Goldman Sachs or Country Wide.

And you are seriously suggesting that the solution is to meld the two closer together, as Obama & Co. are doing?

And you are so confident of the success of this solution that you'll bet on it even when implemented by a Chicago machine politician as President, an Attorney General who declines to prosecute open-and-shut voter intimidation by his boss' supporters, and a Speaker who refuses to investigate corruption among her cronies?

"And yet, in your twisted world, the only answer to this is to expand government power!"

Kevin, do you think the government had too much power in the 40s and 50s? Your answer will determine where this conversation can go in regards to appropriate level of governing.

"Markadelphia will see the small business owners as unAmerican evil fucking capitalists."

Actually, it's the small business owners that are getting fucked over right now by our 30 year old plutonomy. They can't afford health care and are having trouble expanding their businesses because of rising costs of...well...everything.

And, yes, I did see the new Moore film last night with last in line (who will be reviewing the film on my blog soon). It was brilliant. The Citigroup docoument, mentioned in the film, is proof positive that Kruggman was right. Here is further support of this.

I know no one here will go see the film and that's too bad because he says some of the same things that you folks have said here. Funny, the film includes 3 founding fathers (Jefferson, Adams, Franklin) quotes that...well...hee hee...are guaranteed to induce explosive rage from the day room at the mental hospital.

Your perception of Moore being a liberal fascist or whatever insanity the rage is producing today is about as fucking wrong as black tuxedo with a pair of brown shoes. He talks at length about how much he loved capitalism and how it used to be before the lies and theft started.

Kevin, do you think the government had too much power in the 40s and 50s?

I assume you mean post WWII, since during war it isn't controversial that govt is exceedingly powerful.

The simple answer M is that Wickard v. Filburn provided the federal govt way too much power, and that precedent was re-affirmed in Raich v. Gonzales. I doubt you understand the relevant issues in those cases, because you support the unlimited vision of govt (given the underlying unlimited vision of humanity).

So, I may now assume that the post-War years are your Golden Age of Capitalism. An era notable for the concept of "The Organization Man", and very cozy relations between management and labor in Big American business (where short-term labor peace was bought at the expense of long-term business survival). I could note many more short-comings in this Golden Age, but you'd never acknowledge them due to your unfounded nostalgia for an era you didn't even live in.

Your perception of Moore being a liberal fascist or whatever insanity the rage is producing today is about as fucking wrong as black tuxedo with a pair of brown shoes.(i.e. - About as fucking wrong as a fashion faux pas. Brilliant observation. -Ed.) He talks at length about how much he loved capitalism and how it used to be before the lies and theft started.

And he concludes: Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy.

I'm an engineer. I'm interested in what works, not airy ideals and inspiring soundbites. Did the government have too much power in the 40's and 50's? In places. That power has expanded and that expansion has continued and accelerated. I want it hacked back. Yes, the co-option of the government by big business is evil. I've never denied it. It is the inevitable result of the expansion of government power beyond its Constitutional limits. But what I cannot understand is your (and others like you) insistence that the right people are all that's necessary to make everything hunky-dory again while you acknowledge the corruption already in place.

It's naivete to the nth degree.

The kind that led to The Reign of Terror.

The 40's and 50's? Moore seems to want to take us back to the 1790's: Liberté, égalité, fraternité! There's real democracy in action! Ask Robespierre. You two seem to have much in common.

As I said, I'm an engineer - I like what works, but I also recognize what fails, and I don't care to repeat the mistakes of others - especially errors on the scale of the French Revolution.

No, Markadelphia, this conversation cannot go on. You have proven that, repeatedly, beyond any shadow of a doubt. You define words on your own terms, or avoid defining them, then change those definitions to suit yourself. You make assertions, and when presented with evidence disproving them, you avoid or ignore that evidence. You've become so predictable, we have a table of your "discussion tactics." So no, there's no point. Your worldview has been distorted through a funhouse mirror, and we just don't see things the same way.

Here's a question for you: do you actually know anyone who owns a small business?

I do. Several dozen, in fact. It used to be my job to deal with small-business owners. I guarantee you, if you speak to small-business owners, they will be far more exercised about the horrendous taxes they must pay to employ workers, than about health insurance.

The problem with theorizing about the real world is that the real world doesn't go away.

Just to be provocative: yes, that includes the war years. I question whether wage and price controls were necessary; they were certainly not prudent, given that we are seeing the unintended consequences (Bastiat and Hazlitt win again!) play out now in health insurance, and I don't imagine they were Constitutional, either.

Actually, it's the small business owners that are getting fucked over right now by our 30 year old plutonomy. They can't afford health care and are having trouble expanding their businesses because of rising costs of...well...everything.

Jesus Fucking Christ Mark, you are dumber than a box of rocks and half as useful.

This is the stupidest thing I've heard all week, and with all the useless yapping Obama's been doing, that's saying something.

Now listen close, because this is straight up from a primary source, so take some fucking notes and try to learn something for a change, dipshit.

Speaking as a former small business owner, I can tell you authoritatively that on the list of reasons why I am no longer a small business owner, the cost of health care doesn't even crack the top ten. See, even if my store offered health care as part of its compensation package, and it didn't, fluctuations in that cost would not bother me because I can plan for it. Same as the cost of inventory, electricity, insurance, and all the other little bills.

However, what I could not plan for, and kept me awake nights, was the costs of complying with the bullshit rules and regulations constantly piled onto my business. License for this, permit for that, a fee here, a tax there, line forms on the left, sign here, use the correct forms, etc etc. Apart from the ever moving goalposts (a concept you should be eminently familiar with), being out of compliance with my free market suppliers means lost money. Cross the wrong arbitrary government agency and I lose everything. Business, money, credit, house, cars, everything. This is the essential difference between freedom and fascism and it saddens me you do not comprehend this.

But you've never run a business, or you would understand Hell, like your hero Obama, I doubt you've ever held a real fucking job in your entire life. You've never had to balance books, bend over backwards for capricious bureaucrats, find payroll somewhere, make tough decisions (I've literally had to choose between groceries or payroll) or hire and fire employees. You sure as hell haven't had to hold your sobbing wife in your arms and explain how, again, you had to pay your employees this week and not yourself, so don't you fucking DARE to presume what it's like to be a producer!

The biggest threat to small business isn't the rising cost of health care you ignorant shit stain, it's the constant assault of useless, know-it-all leeches like yourself trying to shape society to match their Marxist ideal no matter how many broken lives it costs. You have no fucking clue how millions of people turn time into money every day and yet you presume to tell them what to do! What in the fucking hell is wrong with you?

And as for what's wrong with Marky, well..... he gets his facts from Michael Moore. (And Bill Maher. - Ed.) At this point there is a whole host of mental disorders that could cover what's wrong with him.

Well, this is one I read today:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/10/some-thoughts-on-seeing-capitalism-love.html"Dump ¢apitali$m/Join the Socialists." And, indeed, the movie was a big promotion of socialism. Capitalism is "evil" — Capitalism is a "sin" — we were told over and over. And if only all the downtrodden masses would see this truth and join together we could have socialism.

***

Amusingly, Barack Obama is presented — outright — as a socialist. We see a roomful of people exulting over the election night announcement that Obama has won and, in context, we're made to think that it's the downtrodden people celebrating that socialism has arrived. I don't think Obama really wants Michael Moore's help.

***

My biggest problem with the movie was that it was such an incoherent mishmash, and it wasn't edgy and funny enough to make up for that. There were whole segments that had nothing to do with problems with capitalism and that Moore seemed to use because he had footage with sympathetic talking heads.
...
We have plenty of regulation in this country that keeps us away from a completely free market, and we can procure that legislation if that's what we want. I was disgusted by the camera trained on the face of a boy who cried over the death of his young mother. The real villain there was asthma. It said nothing significant about capitalism, which made it grotesque exploitation to use that boy in the movie.

Gee, marking the relative reliability of Althouse and -adelphia, and knowing the history I do of Moore (who is an ardent capitalist, ripping off those ignorant rubes - or not, as the bombing movie case might suggest - like Ralph here) I know which one I tend to believe.

"I would say that we are also perceived as weak but it is because our country has moved so far to the right …"

What. The. Frack. Is. Wrong. With. You. ?.?.?.?

Moved to the Frackking Right???

Are you trying to tell us that when the Federal Government was first set up in the 18th Century that it included so called "social justice" programs similar to welfare, social security, universal health care, government control of wages (caps and minimums), government bailouts, and so forth? And for that to be true, you would also have to be saying that there was some sort of coverup of these "facts" by a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" so huge that it makes the moon landing, flat earth, contrails in the sky, 9/11 Troothers, "AIDS created by the government" conspiracies combined look like a passing thought.

In order for your statement to be anywhere near true, our country would not only have had to be to the left of where it is now at some point, but it would have had to be to the left from the beginning.

Can you not see how frakking insane that is? I'm not talking "agree to disagree" insane. Not even see a psychologist once in a while insane. I'm talking full blown, involuntary commitment, rubber room, straight-jacket, helmet, soft foods for the rest of your life insane.

Heck, even in the last 40 years, there has been a huge shift to the left. Consider John F. Kennedy, the champion of the Left in the early 60's. If you compare his policies with today's environment, you'll discover that he was actually to the right of frakkin' John McCain! And probably even to the right of George W. Bush!

Marky, you need to get your head out of Michael Moore's rectum before you frackking suffocate to death. You're already showing serious signs of hypoxia.

"… that we believe that any government involvement in the marketplace as being inherently evil."

This is just goddamned bullshit and you know it. In fact, we already pointed out this lie to you recently (and your response indicates that you actually read the comment where this specific point was posted). To refresh your memory, here is the part of the definition of a Free Market Economy which we specifically referred to:

"(4) A government, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, which is intent on preserving market processes while protecting peaceful market participants from the encroachments of those who would resort to the threat or use of force or fraud."

You have claimed we ignore facts over and over again. Yet once again, we have positive proof that you actively ignore everything you don't like. It's clear that you make up whatever the hell you want to believe about us, but that doesn't make it true. In fact, as usual, your dogma doesn't have anything to do with the truth.

(BTW, I'm still working on a response to the comment on your site where you claim I ignore certain facts. I'm not running away as you normally do, I'm just not finished writing yet.)

any government involvement in the marketplace as being inherently evil."

I've been giggling over this since I read it.

So, the man who calls the mortgage market unregulated is going to use his POWAHS of DEDUCKION and SUPAHCRITICALLY THUNKING to tell us what we (as a group! cause we're like the Taliban and plus tolerate no dissent and follow our leaders in lockstep, like Bush and McCain!) think.

Ironically enough, even though we do not support a free market without any kind of restraints as Marky pretends we do, that is exactly what Barak Obama's international policies do in cases of misbehavior by other nations; never punishing them when they do things that are outright wrong. (Violating treaties, genocide, terrorism, etc.)

Marky, we agree that an unfettered free market is unworkable and that the government must punish fraud and illegitimate force. So why do you support a President who thinks the same should not apply on an international level?

Your aphasia response was awesome. I still chuckle when I think of it. But yes, it is telling that it takes such a nosebleed level of parody to top Marky's supposed "critical thinking". Or is that "critical condition"? I can't quite tell.

BTW, I saw something about Moore's latest film using quotes from the Founding Fathers, but I don't quite remember where. I'm pretty sure Marky wrote it.

I'd be willing to bet a box of doughnuts equal to Moore's daily intake (that's a BIG box) that he misused these quotes by either taking them out of context or "judiciously editing" them to say something other than what the original writer intended. Does anyone know what these quotes are and how Moore Distortion used them?

"I wasn't simulating aphasia as much as just redefining words to mean what I wanted them to when I used them."

Well, aphasia is a neurological disorder where the meanings of words and the words themselves lose connection. So when someone is suffering from it, the results are similar to your parody. So it's a handy tag for your parody.

If you'll recall, last time that lead to checking out the definition of aphasia, where I found that one of the symptoms is "excessive creation and use of personal neologisms". And the definition of neologism is:

"In psychiatry, the term neologism is used to describe the use of words that only have meaning to the person who uses them, independent of their common meaning. This is considered normal in children, but a symptom of thought disorder (indicative of a psychotic mental illness, such as schizophrenia) in adults.

"People with autism also may create neologisms.

"Use of neologisms may also be related to aphasia acquired after brain damage resulting from a stroke or head injury."

The sad part is that Marky isn't simulating it, but his use of words does match the definition of neologisms.

I do agree with this point. And I disagree with Moore when he says that capitalism is evil. It's equally as short sighted to say that socialism is evil. In fact, Moore contradicts himself in the film and says that he loved capitalism and would like to see it back. So do I. What we have now is not capitalism. It's an oligarchy...a plutonomy...and the Citigroup document above proves it. Have any of you read it? It torpedoes pretty much every assertion that they wealthy are bearing this horrible burden and we should feel sorry for them. This comes from a private company...not the government...not a liberal commenter...the free market. Again, I ask, if the government is not the mechanism to correct this, what is?

"I like what works, but I also recognize what fails"

But do you? The recent economic collapse and subsequent research all points to lack of government involvement as being the root cause of the problem. And yet, you still blame the government. It's insane.

"You define words on your own terms, or avoid defining them, then change those definitions to suit yourself."

Projection x one zillion!

"Here's a question for you: do you actually know anyone who owns a small business?"

Yes, several people. None of them blame the government for their current economic woes, although a couple blame the lack of action as being a problem. These are middle class people that think, as I do, that they are what drives this economy, not the wealthiest 1 percent. These people, btw, will still have plenty of more money than everyone else if we actually returned to capitalism in this country. And that's NOT SOCIALISM, folks!

"Mark, what fucking world are you living in?"

Um, the real one in which Barack Obama isn't even a liberal. I'm going to keep saying it because it's true. You're wrong. I'm right. And I have a multitude of facts on my side, including today's post from Kevin!

"Can you not see how frakking insane that is?"

Can't you see how insane your point of view is? Have you ever been out of this country, Ed...and compared what they have to us? We live in a center right country. The person with perception problems is YOU, not me. You can make fun of me and Maher/Moore all you want...they're correct. We have a center right party in this country (The Democrats-the chief target, btw in Moore's new film) and a crazy party. I have several friends in other countries who are shovel to the head stunned when I explain to them that Barack Obama is considered liberal. In fact, in a recent email to a friend in Europe I remarked that conservatives were up in arms about...well...everything...and the response was...Barack Obama is up in arms?

The simple fact that you are angry as you are means that they are on to something. You resort to personal attacks rather than dispute their points. Go see the film, Ed, and send me your critical notes. Demonstrate to me how he is wrong. If you don't do so, doesn't that mean that all you accuse me of is actually true of you?

Oh, and take all the time you want to respond on my blog. I will never think you are running away or avoiding anything. Mammoth rigidity is not my style.

"Um, the real one in which Barack Obama isn't even a liberal. I'm going to keep saying it because it's true. You're wrong. I'm right. And I have a multitude of facts on my side, including today's post from Kevin!"

"Um, the real one in which Barack Obama isn't even a liberal. I'm going to keep saying it because it's true. You're wrong. I'm right. And I have a multitude of facts on my side, including today's post from Kevin!"

Thomas Frank (and by extension, Frank Rich) wasn't saying Obama isn't a liberal, they're saying he's a liar. The two are hardly mutually exclusive. In fact, politician = liar, regardless of which side of the aisle one sits. What disappointed Thomas Frank is, like Markadelphia, he thought The Won would be different, but that belief was based solely on the fact that Obama said he was. Yet he was the (successful) product of one of the most corrupt political machines in the country - a point everyone avoided mentioning except the Right.

What is unsurprising is that Tinkerballs still cannot (or refuses to) grasp that concept.

I'm not sure who Marky is arguing against but it isn't anyone on this blog. Who on this blog is defending the malfeasances of big banks or big business?

What problems would more regulations fix?

Big business doesn't mind regulation. They can afford it and it puts their smaller competitors out of business.

A perfect example of this is Mattel and the new regulation on lead in children's toys. Small toy makers and resellers can't afford to comply and can't compete with Mattel which can easily comply and now will have LESS COMPETITION.

Government regulators much prefer dealing with big companies. They know how to fill out the forms and when to submit them and they make the GS-9's life who has to deal with them much easier.

Big business and big government go hand in hand. One feeds the other and makes the other larger. It is a vicious circle.

I will be honest with you, Kevin - I still have a nagging, back-of-my-brain suspicion that Tinkerballs (I definitely like that particular moniker) is a carefully-crafted alter ego of you or one of your friends... Unfortunately, I am fairly certain those suspicions are entirely the product of a deep and unyielding denial that people like him can actually exist.

For example, on the one hand, he hypocritically accuses us of projection when we point out that he consistently, repeatedly, and incessantly redefines words to meet his own particular needs of the moment; and yet, in the very previous breath, he demonstrated that he has absolutely no understanding of the definitions of such simple words as "involvement", and intentionally misused those simple words to make his own fallacious and incorrect point. Amazing. Simply amazing.

My brain simply does not want to admit to the existence of someone with that degree of reality disconnect, much less the idea of him educating and training young minds. What can I say - I am weak.

How sharp-as-a-tack intelligent would someone have to be to consistently fake what he appears to be? Superficially, it's not difficult. It's the small things that even the most perfect fake would miss that give him away.

"Have you ever been out of this country, Ed...and compared what they have to us? We live in a center right country. … We have a center right party in this country (The Democrats-the chief target, btw in Moore's new film) and a crazy party. I have several friends in other countries who are shovel to the head stunned when I explain to them that Barack Obama is considered liberal. In fact, in a recent email to a friend in Europe I remarked that conservatives were up in arms about...well...everything...and the response was...Barack Obama is up in arms?"

Your claim was that this country has "moved … to the right". So if I understand your argument correctly, our country has "moved" to right because there are other countries that are to the left of us. Right? (BTW, I do not deny that there are countries which are to the left of us. That much is true.)

Please tell me you're joking! Or pulling my leg, or just trolling to see how we'll respond. Please tell me you're not serious!

Your claim boils down to stating that we have "moved" right because we haven't gone as far left as we could have. Do you have any idea just how frakkin' nonsensical this is?

Think about it. Movement is measured by comparing the object which is moving to its previous position, NOT by comparing it to the position of other moving objects.

Think of it this way. When you're in your car driving down the highwaylet's say you're going Eastand another car passes you because they're going faster, which direction are you going? By your reasoning, you're now going West because the other car is going East faster than you are. (Or there's another car that's already further East than you are.) But that's totally nonsensical. Surely even you can see that you're still going East even if you're not going as fast as another car, or you're not as far down the road as other cars.

"The simple fact that you are angry as you are means that they are on to something."

Nope. Invalid premise. This can only be true if the only reason someone gets angry is if they can't answer a claim. You've gotten angry too. Does that meanby your standardsthat we're on to something? I would be totally shocked if you agreed.

There are plenty of valid reasons to get angry.

We're now into football season. If a football ref makes an obviously bad call, does the team the call goes against have a good reason to be angry about the call? You betcha. Furthermore, honest supporters of the team that benefits from the bad call also have good reasons to be angry about the call. If that team wins, then they can't celebrate their accomplishment because it can be reasonably argued that they were handed a victory that they didn't earn.

Or suppose a con artist steals your life savings. Would you have a good reason to be angry at him? Or would the con "be on to something" that you must agree with?

Or say that you were looking forward to seeing a particular movie (by Michael Moore?) and you missed seeing it because someone told you the wrong time or gave you bad directions. Would you have a legitimate reason to be angry? You shouldn't get as angry as if you're life savings were stolen, but it's still legitimate to get angry.

You might even claim that Christians shouldn't get angry. You would be wrong:

"In the temple complex He found people selling oxen, sheep, and doves, and He also found the money changers sitting there. After making a whip out of cords, He drove everyone out of the temple complex with their sheep and oxen. He also poured out the money changers’ coins and overturned the tables. He told those who were selling doves, “Get these things out of here! Stop turning My Father’s house into a marketplace!”"
(John 2:1416 HCSB)

If you think Jesus wasn't angry at the violation of God's laws, you're kidding yourself.

Bottom line, getting angry over lies, injustice, crime, deceit, etc. is perfectly valid. Deliberately ignoring facts you don't like and blatantly trafficking in deceit, even if you're deceiving yourself, is a good reason to get angry. In fact, LabRat tried to explain it to you, but as usual, you pulled Standard Response #1 and ignored everything you didn't like. So to refresh your memory of what LabRat said:

"I was NOT angry because you got close to home. Not even close. You haven't got the slightest idea where home is and I'd more or less come to that conclusion before we had that go-around, but that is NOT what changed or why I stopped bothering to engage with you at all except for drive-by mocking.

I was furious with you because you revealed not that you are intellectually bankrupt, which everyone knew and I don't really care that much about, but that you are completely morally bankrupt despite all your pious posturing.

So now I'll remind you once more about what Pascal wrote:

"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping. But for that we should feel sorry rather than angry."

You see, when we're careful to point out the evidence and you ignore it to come up with some farcical conclusion that bears no resemblance to reality, then have the sheer effrontery to claim that we are actually the ones with lame mindsby claiming that we "ignore facts" that we don't ignore, claiming we hold positions that we don't actually hold, and so forththen we all have good reason to get angry at you.

Put another way, if "getting angry" is the standard for admitting that there is "something to" an opponents arguments, then you need to admit there is something to our arguments when they make you angry. (For example, there must have been something to the questions about Obama addressing school children directly, because our concerns sure made you angry!)

Mark, considering you cannot define "verbatim", consider us to be "conservatives" AKA Christian Coalitionists, and denied that Obama has made the very mistakes we predicted he would, done the things we've predicted, and behaved in a manner totally unlike your predictions....

You're not hinged enough to tell us what "sane" is.

I can pick any one of your arguments and point to where you're misusing words, where you're ignoring something (usually previously pointed out to you) and/or inventing out of whole cloth history.

Any. One.

The litany of things you've without quibble lied about - and then lied about lying about them is long. The entire catalog of your arguments I got tired of indexing and cataloging. ME!

You won't argue facts. You want to argue vague concepts and feelings, and use facts (usually incorrectly) to bolster that. There's a reason. You cannot. Period.

To pick the best example would be impossible - there are so many. And yet you think you're morally superior to us. And intellectually.

That's the truly insane part.

For the example right above:

But do you? The recent economic collapse and subsequent research all points to lack of government involvement as being the root cause of the problem. And yet, you still blame the government. It's insane.

No, that comment is insane. The economic collapse was directly tied to government, for partisan political purposes, distorting the market, which behaved in predictable ways. The "collapse" was entirely predicted, historically consistent,
and predicated upon government actions and reactions and made far worse by government attempts to "fix" it - benefiting the politically
connected.

You keep saying that there wasn't enough government regulation.

How much would have been enough? Right now the current regulation fills bookcases. Large, legal bookcases.

Yes, all physical motion is relative to other objects. However, in daily life, we measure motion relative to the earth because it's a reasonable fixed point of comparison, even if we could reasonable "get outside the system" and see that there are more details involved. It's similar to our continued use of Newtonian physics in daily life and engineering even though we now know there are more details than Newton ever dreamed of. Avoiding unnecessary details allows us to function without getting bogged down by trying to cross bridges that we don't need to cross. (Isn't that kinda the point of Occam's Razor?)

Likewise, we use a convention of Left and Right as a "rule of thumb" measurement of political positions even though we know there is nothing physical to have motion in philosophy and that strict Left/Right comparisons are not possible due to the number of details. Still, it's a useful convention because it allows us to use the generalities necessary to have a big picture discussion. (I.e., when we need to look at the forest, without getting lost in the trees.)

Still, the point remains that when you want to measure the change in political philosophies within a system, you can only do so by comparing the political philosophies of two different periods of time within the same system. Comparing the political philosophies of two different systems is completely meaningless when you're attempting to measure what change a single system has undergone.

But I think I'll have to stick to using analogies because the primary goal is to make the point as clearly and as simply as possible. If I ever find a better way to make a difficult philosophical point clear and simple without resorting a analogies, I'll use it. For now, this is what I have to work with.

When it comes to the spectrum of political philosophies (i.e., what is possible), I can't say it any clearer than you did.

I look at it a bit more simply, Ed. If my political philosophy can be described as a location, then it is incorrect to say that my location is now different because someone else's location has moved. A correct label of my political philosophy does not depend on a label of anyone else's philosophy. This is where the analogy fails. Your mileage may vary.

Of course - but that's the mortgage market alone. Seriously. My uncle used to be in RE law - he had a large library that had several extra rooms added for all the hard copy needed (this was during the ramp up to the computer age - so 10 years ago.)

That's all I was referring to. Mark has repeatedly called the mortgage market "unregulated".

You're entirely right about the entire breadth of regulations - he'll never understand it - but I'm trying to (and failing) to make that factual point that's easily proven. Just to that one segment that Mark thinks, believes, votes on the basis of, emotes, and insists that mortgages are unregulated.

It's just one of the most regulated fields you could possibly pick, and with Mark's inability to 1) notice that for himself, 2) recognize that as incorrect when corrected 3) research it for HIMSELF, and 4) stop repeating into infinity .....

The rest of the inanity he's preaching from the soapbox is far too complex for his head.

I'm also saying that when you're trying to measure changes to your own philosophy, you can only do so by tracking changes in your own positions over time. And when you're trying to measure the changes of political philosophy for an entire country, you can only do so by tracking the political changes within that country.

Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>